democrats, do you agree or disagree

[ScienceRocks]

The real question is why does TM hate JFK?

lol.

Because JFK is right of Romney today. LOL

 

[Moonglow]

with this statement:



"the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the (tax) rates now."



Why or why not?

No. It has been proven that even cutting taxes does not work in every situation.

 

[auditor0007]

You are aware the statement you do not agree with was from JFK right.

and you don't even know what Facts are. The Facts are clear. No matter how many times you guys try to spin them.

Yea, that JFK thingy, that's a troubling thing isn't it? You do realize when JFK pushed for lower tax rates that the highest tax rate was 91%, right? .

You do realize that there were many more Deductions and Loop holes then and NOBODY was actually paying 91% right. The Effective real Tax Rate then for the Top after all Deductions and Loop holes was more like 40%.

Your Intellectual Dishonesty on this subject betrays you as a Partisan Hack.

I understand all those things, and I am far from a partisan hack unlike you who continues to drink the koolaid and believe that we can forever cut taxes in order to increase revenues. What is so scary is that half the damn country believes the nonsense even though we have absolute proof that it doesn't work.

 

[auditor0007]

with this statement:



"the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the (tax) rates now."



Why or why not?

utter bullshit because it has failed in practice over and over again

Look at Southern Europe economically. Too much spending and to high taxes are the problem.

You know that saying "too much of a good thing can be a bad thing"? Well it pertains to both too much government spending and taxation and also to too little.

 

[Avorysuds]

Ok, a bit of honesty here.

Cutting taxes is not “the answer,” it’s part of the answer.
Obama cuts taxes through deficit building tax credits, Obama also extended the Bush era tax cuts. Obama has no real plans to raise anyone’s taxes, he will borrow or print money and let inflation do the taxing.

What you have to do is get rid of poor/bad/destructive regulations then you balance the budget by matching the incoming revenues to that of what you spend. THEN you cuts taxes if possible. All this is easily done if you follow the constitution and the powers given to the federal Government.

What we have today us a gimmick system where cutting taxes buys votes on a mass scale, so even the “tax and spend” democrats are really just “cut taxes and spend” like the Republicans of Bush and his congress. Notice “tax cuts get talked about for the 2 largest groups, middle class and the poor, even though the poor pay near or no taxes? It’s a scam.

Regulation is pure corruption and getting rid of bad regulation buys almost no votes, hence the mass amounts of regulations passed every year and the zero regulations cut.

Spending for the first time is becoming an issue on a level where it could lose you more votes than it gains…. That is why we are having such a divide in our nation. Politicians for the first time can’t talk about balancing a budget then grow it without repercussions.

The spending is important because now politicians have to pretend how to get it under control. So of course they claim “tax the rich,” the smallest voter block (shocking) while still talking about giving tax breaks to the middle class and poor…. See how this is working?

The issue of course is people are aware that taxing the rich won’t even cover 1% of the deficit we run, so the divide is growing. No cuts are offered and whey they are they are so minor and take place over such a long period of time that in fact the cuts don’t even keep up with spending growth.

So let’s argue about tax cuts… because that’s what politicians are banking on, that you, the stupid masses care more about who gets tax cuts and who has to pay taxes than actually balancing the budget, you know, the thing that we run up when we don’t collect enough taxes. Keep people focused on Democrats hating the rich or Republicans hating the poor that way we can still pass Obamacare, MC part D, wars, welfare and more spending that even a unavoidable 50% taxe on everyone couldn’t pay for.

 

[Avorysuds]

The real question is why does TM hate JFK?

lol.

Because JFK is right of Romney today. LOL

Hmm... Mitt is pretty much Obama, per policy... I can't agree that JFK who was far more conservative than MItt, Bush, Newt, Santorum and Palin combined is like Mitt of today.

 

[Truthmatters]

Kennedy was talking about the early sixties economy.

NOT EVERY situation like you idiots claim

Laffer also said it only works in certain conditions.


the right we have today claims it works every time which is contrary to all the facts

 

[Moonglow]

The real question is why does TM hate JFK?

lol.

Because JFK is right of Romney today. LOL

Hmm... Mitt is pretty much Obama, per policy... I can't agree that JFK who was far more conservative than MItt, Bush, Newt, Santorum and Palin combined is like Mitt of today.

How in the world can you even to consider that one man is the same as the other in every aspect?
You never studied philosophy.

 

[Truthmatters]

It ONLY worls under certain conditions LAFFER himself said so

 

[Truthmatters]

Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Relationship with supply-side economics

Main article: Supply-side economics

Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that overall economic well-being is maximized by lowering the barriers to producing goods and services (the "Supply Side" of the economy). By lowering such barriers, consumers are thought to benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices. Typical supply-side policy would advocate generally lower income tax and capital gains tax rates (to increase the supply of labor and capital), smaller government and a lower regulatory burden on enterprises (to lower costs). Although tax policy is often mentioned in relation to supply-side economics, supply-side economists are concerned with all impediments to the supply of goods and services and not just taxation.[24]

Both Wanniski and Laffer were prominent supply-side advocates, and as such the concepts of the Laffer curve and supply-side economics are often conflated. Further, supply-side advocates have at times argued for lower taxes on the basis of supply-side benefits while citing the Laffer curve as a reason that such cuts would also raise revenue. However, the objective of supply-side theory is to maximize the supply of goods and services, and to achieve this one should, in theory, always lower taxes. In contrast, the Laffer curve would suggest that a tax cut would raise tax revenues only if current tax rates were in the right-hand region of the curve.

 

[Truthmatters]

Idiots who believe propaganda and spend no time investigating what they quote

 

[Moonglow]

Ok, a bit of honesty here.

Cutting taxes is not “the answer,” it’s part of the answer.
Obama cuts taxes through deficit building tax credits, Obama also extended the Bush era tax cuts. Obama has no real plans to raise anyone’s taxes, he will borrow or print money and let inflation do the taxing.

What you have to do is get rid of poor/bad/destructive regulations then you balance the budget by matching the incoming revenues to that of what you spend. THEN you cuts taxes if possible. All this is easily done if you follow the constitution and the powers given to the federal Government.

What we have today us a gimmick system where cutting taxes buys votes on a mass scale, so even the “tax and spend” democrats are really just “cut taxes and spend” like the Republicans of Bush and his congress. Notice “tax cuts get talked about for the 2 largest groups, middle class and the poor, even though the poor pay near or no taxes? It’s a scam.

Regulation is pure corruption and getting rid of bad regulation buys almost no votes, hence the mass amounts of regulations passed every year and the zero regulations cut.

Spending for the first time is becoming an issue on a level where it could lose you more votes than it gains…. That is why we are having such a divide in our nation. Politicians for the first time can’t talk about balancing a budget then grow it without repercussions.

The spending is important because now politicians have to pretend how to get it under control. So of course they claim “tax the rich,” the smallest voter block (shocking) while still talking about giving tax breaks to the middle class and poor…. See how this is working?

The issue of course is people are aware that taxing the rich won’t even cover 1% of the deficit we run, so the divide is growing. No cuts are offered and whey they are they are so minor and take place over such a long period of time that in fact the cuts don’t even keep up with spending growth.

So let’s argue about tax cuts… because that’s what politicians are banking on, that you, the stupid masses care more about who gets tax cuts and who has to pay taxes than actually balancing the budget, you know, the thing that we run up when we don’t collect enough taxes. Keep people focused on Democrats hating the rich or Republicans hating the poor that way we can still pass Obamacare, wars, welfare and more spending that even a unavoidable 50% taxe on everyone couldn’t pay for.

Again your assumption is based on opinion not fact.

Just because you believe it to be so does not make it as such.

We as a nation have been here before, after WWII the tax rate was very high, guess what, didn't stop us from becoming a super power. Did not stop economic increase.

 

[Moonglow]

The way the global coproratists are concerned they have no national loyalty, money is their only concern, 50 years ago that idea would have got you thrown out of the board meeting in a made in USA company.
We are at the mercy of the companies you are brainwashed with advertisemnet to buy their products, even when you don't need it.
We have literally created the monster that wants us devoured.
All the companies want with their govts. is to control them and make political policy by wars and divisions of the nations people.
We are supporting those that would enslave us.

 

[onecut39]

with this statement:



"the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the (tax) rates now."



Why or why not?

Show where tax cuts have ever paid for themselves, without creative book keeping that is.

 

[Truthmatters]

supply side ecomonics is based on lies

 

[onecut39]

supply side ecomonics is based on lies

Build it and they will come?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Of course, taking all the money from the producers and giving it to the takers is better.

 

[Avorysuds]

Because JFK is right of Romney today. LOL

Hmm... Mitt is pretty much Obama, per policy... I can't agree that JFK who was far more conservative than MItt, Bush, Newt, Santorum and Palin combined is like Mitt of today.

How in the world can you even to consider that one man is the same as the other in every aspect?
You never studied philosophy.

Moon, stfu boi.

I said per policy and I didn't even say they were 100% the same. You took what I said and made it a deep exaggeration.

 

[Avorysuds]

Ok, a bit of honesty here.

Cutting taxes is not “the answer,” it’s part of the answer.
Obama cuts taxes through deficit building tax credits, Obama also extended the Bush era tax cuts. Obama has no real plans to raise anyone’s taxes, he will borrow or print money and let inflation do the taxing.

What you have to do is get rid of poor/bad/destructive regulations then you balance the budget by matching the incoming revenues to that of what you spend. THEN you cuts taxes if possible. All this is easily done if you follow the constitution and the powers given to the federal Government.

What we have today us a gimmick system where cutting taxes buys votes on a mass scale, so even the “tax and spend” democrats are really just “cut taxes and spend” like the Republicans of Bush and his congress. Notice “tax cuts get talked about for the 2 largest groups, middle class and the poor, even though the poor pay near or no taxes? It’s a scam.

Regulation is pure corruption and getting rid of bad regulation buys almost no votes, hence the mass amounts of regulations passed every year and the zero regulations cut.

Spending for the first time is becoming an issue on a level where it could lose you more votes than it gains…. That is why we are having such a divide in our nation. Politicians for the first time can’t talk about balancing a budget then grow it without repercussions.

The spending is important because now politicians have to pretend how to get it under control. So of course they claim “tax the rich,” the smallest voter block (shocking) while still talking about giving tax breaks to the middle class and poor…. See how this is working?

The issue of course is people are aware that taxing the rich won’t even cover 1% of the deficit we run, so the divide is growing. No cuts are offered and whey they are they are so minor and take place over such a long period of time that in fact the cuts don’t even keep up with spending growth.

So let’s argue about tax cuts… because that’s what politicians are banking on, that you, the stupid masses care more about who gets tax cuts and who has to pay taxes than actually balancing the budget, you know, the thing that we run up when we don’t collect enough taxes. Keep people focused on Democrats hating the rich or Republicans hating the poor that way we can still pass Obamacare, wars, welfare and more spending that even a unavoidable 50% taxe on everyone couldn’t pay for.

Again your assumption is based on opinion not fact.

Just because you believe it to be so does not make it as such.

We as a nation have been here before, after WWII the tax rate was very high, guess what, didn't stop us from becoming a super power. Did not stop economic increase.

Actually after ww2 we cut taxes and the people running for office ran off that. They cut spending by about 60% too and dismantled much of FDR’s regulations and polices… Thanks for proving what I said to be a 100% truth by pointing out where it worked in history.

Also WWII was a very unique situation where as the rest of the world was in shambles, demand for US goods was at such a high rate that the world has never seen anything like it… would you like to enter ww3 in hopes that it happens again?

Context you noob, use it.

 

[Avorysuds]

with this statement:



"the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the (tax) rates now."



Why or why not?

Show where tax cuts have ever paid for themselves, without creative book keeping that is.

1920's when Harding did it.